|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
New Direct Taxes Code: Good job done for international taxation but TPL becomes dream merchant for domestic taxpayers! New Direct Taxes Code - Great Indian Media Circus takes people on a ride; CBEC exempts Naphtha from central excise duty for manufacture of fertilisers; additional condition prescribed; CBEC, CEIB looking for STOs & Under Secretary; Govt sets up EGoM on drought; FM to head it; CBEC amends tariff value of brass scraps and poppy seeds (See Notification); CBEC issues transfer order of SIX AC/DCs + TWO Addl/JCs; President prorogues Rajya Sabha which was adjourned sine die on Aug 7th; No environmental approval to Navi Mumbai Airport: Jairam Ramesh; ITAT Chennai Bench Vice President M K Chaturvedi goes to CAT, Guwahati Bench; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
TIOL COMMENTARY New Direct Taxes Code – Great Indian Media Circus takes people on a ride; New Direct Taxes Code: Good job done for international taxation but TPL becomes dream merchant for domestic taxpayers!; MIXED BUZZ CCEA gives nod for continuation of Ayush hospitals; Govt sets up Task Force to stimulate growth in IT Sector; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
NOTIFICATION CBEC exempts Naphtha from central excise duty for manufacture of fertilisers; additional condition prescribed; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-406-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + settle story.pdf CIT, Mumbai Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai (Dated: July 8, 2009) Settlement Commission has not considered huge undisclosed income – imposes a token penalty – No true and full disclosure – matter remanded to Settlement Commission: In view of the facts and the legal position even though the respondents had not made full and true disclosure of their income while making applications under Section 245C , it would not be proper to set aside the proceeding. However, at the same time, the Commission appears to have misdirected itself on several important aspects while passing the final order. Taking into consideration the multiple disclosures and the fact that the respondents had failed to make true and full disclosure initially as well as at the time of second disclosure, no justifiable reasons to reduce or waive the amount of penalty so drastically. Impugned orders dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Settlement Commission are set aside and all the proceedings are remanded.: BOMBAY HIGH COURT; CIT, Chennai Vs Sri Sudarshan Kumar Rungta (Dated: July 20, 2009) Income tax - Sec 68 - Assessee is a proprietory concern - converts into a pvt ltd company - survey - suppression of sales and credit entries found - additions made - CIT invokes Sec 263 and orders fresh examination of records for the proprietory concern - Tribunal allows assessee's appeal on the ground that liability of tax for credit entries were fastened on the assessee as a pvt ltd company and the same cannot be again fastened on the assessee as a proprietory concern - held, there cannot be double taxation - Revenue's appeal dismissed.: MADRAS HIGH COURT; Shakuntala Devi Vs DDIT, Bangalore (Dated: June 23, 2009) Income tax - Sec 54 - Assessee is a mathematician - sells two properites and buys one for residential purpose - Sec 147 - AO disallows Sec 54 benefits as the assessee fails to furnish papers relating to purchase of property - held, since the agreement to purchase the new property was cancelled after giving advance as the assessee could not raise required funds during the relevant FY, the transaction did not culminate into purchase either one year before or two years after the date of transfer nor a residential house constructed within a period of three years after the date of transfer. So, the CIT(A) was justified in denying the clam of exemption u/s. 54 of the IT Act. However, the case is remanded to verify the assessee's alternative claim about making investments as per proviso to sub-section 2 of section 54.: BANGALORE ITAT; Yogesh Aurora Vs ITO, Bangalore (Dated: April 9, 2009) Income Tax Act – Section 28 - assessee enters into an agreement to purchase a property. As per clause 9 of the agreement, it was mentioned that if the vendor fails or neglects to execute the deed of sale in favour of the purchaser within the period mentioned in the deed, then he shall become liable to liquidated damages in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in favour of purchaser. The amount so paid shall be in addition to advance received by the seller. However, before the assessee could register the property, the seller declined to honour the contract and offered the liquidated damages as per the agreement - AO held that the said sum was taxable as business receipt – Held, that the appellant was working as a consultant in Pharmed Limited. M/s. Pharmed Limited was engaged in the business of marketing and trading of pharmaceutical products and that company appointed the appellant on the post of Consultant. Thus, the appellant was not engaged in the business of real estate. Hence, it cannot be said that the agreement for purchase of property was a part of business transaction – Also held that the appellant got a valuable right to purchase that property and thus the liquidated damages were accepted because the vendor was not willing to execute the sale deed – the liquidated damages were capital receipt.: BANGALORE ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
cbec vacancies_under_secretary.pdf CBEC, CEIB looking for STOs & Under Secretary; CBEC issues transfer order of 2 Addl/JCs ; CBEC issues transfer order of 6 AC/DCs;
SERVICE TAX SECTION M/s Sayaji Iron & Engg Co Ltd Vs CCE, Vadodara (Dated: May 20, 2009) ST - Cenvat credit - assessee pays tax on erection, commissioning and installation of wind mills away from factory premises - such service cannot be treated as input service as per Rule 2(1) of CCRs, 2004 - Credit not admissible.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Sainik Mining & Allied Service Ltd Vs CCE, CC ST, BBSR II (Dated: May 12, 2009) ST - Cargo Handling Service - assessee enters into contracts with coalfields authorities for extraction and transfer of coal, mechanical transfer and transportation of coal for further processing and hiring of pay loaders - held, the first demand was rightly dropped by the Commissioner(A) as it was mining service and the second demand was ruled in favour of the assessee but the third demand as per the Tribunal's decision in another case goes in favour of the Revenue - A pre-deposit of Rs 11 lakh ordered.: KOLKATA CESTAT; M/s Agarwal Agency Vs CC, CCE & ST, Patna (Dated: March 25, 2009) ST - penalty - assessee pays tax before issue of SCN but contests penalty on the ground of financial hardship, proprietory nature of concern and poor health of proprietor - held, since it is established that the assessee was providing the taxable service and did not pay the tax, it is prima facie liable to penalty - Pre-deposit ordered.: KOLKATA CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION NOTIFICATIONS CBEC exempts Naphtha from central excise duty for manufacture of fertilisers; additional condition prescribed; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-1250-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + ajinkya story.pdf M/s Ajinkya Enterprises Vs CCE, Pune III (Dated: July 23, 2009) Department cannot approbate and reprobate – when the applicant has taken Cenvat credit and paid duty, which as per the Department is not payable, yet having accepted the same, Revenue cannot refuse Cenvat on inputs – CESTAT grants stay from recovery of nearly two Crores.: MUMBAI CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1249-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs CCE & CC, Visakhapatnam (Dated: January 5, 2009) Central Excise – CENVAT – Annual stock taking - Shortages of Input written off – Denial of credit - It is undisputed that the shortages of zinc dust and calcine were found by the appellants on their own and having found the shortages had written off the value from the books of accounts. There is no allegation that the said inputs were removed from the factory premises of the appellants clandestinely. Further inputs which were found short, were received in the factory premises of the appellants and consumption has taken place. The appellants are consuming zinc dust and calcine in huge volumes and the inputs which are put to use by the appellants is lost during the process of manufacture. So, the loss of inputs has taken place in the process of manufacture, therefore, it cannot be said that the inputs have not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. (Para 6.2).: BANGALORE CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1248-CESTAT-BANG.pdf CC & CCE, Tirupati Vs M/s Lanco Industries Ltd (Dated: April 28, 2009) Central Excise – Refund – unjust enrichment – when the debit notes and credit notes are issued and effected, which are not disputed, it cannot be assumed, that incidence of burden of excise duty has been passed on to the purchaser – revenue appeal has no merit in view of the HC order in case of M/s AK Spintex Ltd. and Anr . – 2009-TIOL-12-HC-RAJ-CX .: BANGALORE CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION CBEC revises tariff value of brass scraps and poppy seeds; Malpe Port notified for export of ships; CASE LAWS 2009-TIOL-407-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + refund story.pdf Tamilnadu Steel Tubes Ltd Vs ACC (Refund), Chennai (Dated: July 9, 2009) Customs – Refund of excess duty paid – Nothing on record to suggest that the duty is paid under protest to attract the provisions of proviso to Section 27(1)(b) of Customs Act – No reason to interfere with order of Single Judge.: MADRAS HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-1251-CESTAT-BANG.pdf M/s Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd Vs CC, Mangalore (Dated: April 29, 2009) Customs – warehoused goods – claim for refund on Special Additional duty on the ground that at the time of warehousing the goods, there was no levy of SAD - In respect of warehoused goods, the rate of duty and tariff valuation would be in terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 as on the date of actual clearance from the warehouse – Revenue's appeal against granting of refund allowed.: BANGALORE CESTAT ; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
